Dick Morris: Obama's Opportunity
Dick Morris summarizes why the controversy over Reverend Jeremiah Wright represents both a danger and an opportunity for Senator Obama. I don't agree with everything in Morris' piece, but he still does an excellent job of answering the basic question of, "What is this all about and why is there the flap?"
Obama's pastor and church have been a target since Obama became a front running candidate. Opponents of Obama have seen those elements have fertile ground for creating some sort of wedge issue to distract voters from the discussion of issues and focus them instead on discrediting the candidate. If the candidate can be discredited in some personal way, then the candidate's policy proposals can be discredited, too.
Think about the dedication required to create this controversy. Think about the hours and hours of review of videotape required to find the snippets used to create the sensation on YouTube. The footage extracted is supposed to have come from a sermon the Sunday after 9/11. That was 7 and a half years ago, approximately 392 Sundays worth of messages. Even if there were only one message per Sunday, at 40 hours per week, it would take almost 10 weeks to review all those.
In saying this, I'm not endorsing Wright and his views. I'm just pointing out the level of effort required to get the intended effect. I'm also asking whether that level of effort might better be used trying to address solutions to our actual problems.
Here's a link to Morris' article from his Blog.
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2008/04/29/obama%e2%80%99s-opportunity/#more-329
Obama's pastor and church have been a target since Obama became a front running candidate. Opponents of Obama have seen those elements have fertile ground for creating some sort of wedge issue to distract voters from the discussion of issues and focus them instead on discrediting the candidate. If the candidate can be discredited in some personal way, then the candidate's policy proposals can be discredited, too.
Think about the dedication required to create this controversy. Think about the hours and hours of review of videotape required to find the snippets used to create the sensation on YouTube. The footage extracted is supposed to have come from a sermon the Sunday after 9/11. That was 7 and a half years ago, approximately 392 Sundays worth of messages. Even if there were only one message per Sunday, at 40 hours per week, it would take almost 10 weeks to review all those.
In saying this, I'm not endorsing Wright and his views. I'm just pointing out the level of effort required to get the intended effect. I'm also asking whether that level of effort might better be used trying to address solutions to our actual problems.
Here's a link to Morris' article from his Blog.
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2008/04/29/obama%e2%80%99s-opportunity/#more-329
I'm having a problem sorting out my feelings on the Obama / Rev. Wright association. [I generally support Obama over all the other candidates at this point.] I have seen the snippets of Rev. Wright's controversial sermons. I know I would NOT support Obama if he associated with Jerry Falwell, for instance, who made similar incindiary remarks re: 9/11, only this time blaming a wide assortment of so-called liberals. Is it a double standard for me to overlook similar remarks by Obama's associates? Were Rev. Wright's comments taken out of context? Should the 20-year association Obama has had with Rev. Wright matter in the overall picture? Based on all the evidence, is it fair to equate Rev. Wright with a Jerry Falwell? Have Obama opponents blown this up out of all proportion?
Have you addressed this issue on your blog? [Yes, I know Falwell recently died. I cannot speculate on Falwell's current residence.
]
***************************************
4/28/2008 9:43 PM Larry Bradley wrote:
Thanks for your commentary.
Interesting perspective on comparing Falwell to Wright. Since you wrote this, of course, we have heard from Reverand Wright three times in 3 days.
I haven't had the time to listen to the complete sermon that is so controversial. I am always to reluctant to make commentary when I haven't listened to the full context of something.
Here are two guidelines I have for myself. First, I try to analyze social issues according to the "Three Circle Theory of Politics" I have as an entry in the Blog.
Second, I try to maintain an open mindedness to be able to see the other point of view. This is in accordance with the teachings of Covey and the seven habits--Seek first to understand and then to be understood. Personal loyalty and affinity can make this difficult.
There's a lot of dichotomies and unanswered questions here. Hopefully, we will see them resolved by Obama and his campaign in a way that puts these issues behind us and lets us focus on the bigger issues that should concern us first.
One of the large scale forms of maneuver in war is the Penetration. A Penetration is executed by concentrating a massive force on a very narrow front and moving with all speed to destroy a deep objective. The idea is that if you can destroy the other side's command and control and/or communications (or similar vital function), then you can isolate their combat units and destroy them one at a time. The way you defeat the Penetration is to attack the exposed flanks of the Penetration and slow down the lead elements because of concerns about being cut off before the deep objective is achieved.
The question is whether the research into and illumination of selected elements of Wright's sermons are an attack into the exposed flank of the Obama's campaign to secure the Democratic nomination because Obama's campaign cannot be blunted from the front.
Just some thoughts. Feel free to continue.
Reply to this
I'm glad to see that Obama is finally getting out and forcefully distancing himself from Rev. Wright. It's about time! *I have seen Rev. Wright on Bill Moyers and at the NAACP (I missed his speech at the Press Club.) Is what many don't like about what he says partially his delivery? *When Wright appeared on Moyers his demeanor was low-key, and his comments came across as more reasonable. However, when he spoke before the NAACP, he often used the same words but with his bombastic, loud flair. His words came across as angry, divisive and less reasonable. Style over substance? *Critics claim Wright blamed 9/11 on America. He counter argues that in context he was just saying that Americans should not have been so naively surprised when violence was directed back at us, considering our long history of meddlesome, overt and covert violence directed at other countries in the name of protecting "our interests." [Blowback.] If this WAS his message, he failed miserably. Others have made this point in a more reasoned, successful way in an effort to bring about understanding rather than assigning blame. *I have never understood the attraction to the loud, fire-and-brimstone style of preaching. Does the volume and hyperbole add credibility to the words? Or does the theatricality merely keep the flock awake? *I am not a Wright apologist. After seeing his performance at the NAACP I believe he is a self-serving kook whose 15 minutes of fame should be over. Whether others will allow him to gently fade into oblivion is another story.*To generalize, white folks, when we hear hate-spewing Angry White Preachers/Men, tend to brush them aside as harmless out-of-touch kooks since they aren't directly targeting MOST whites. When we hear equivalent hate-spewing Angry Black Preachers/Men, we are not nearly as dismissive as we have become the targets. We sit up and take notice and fight back--and fight back some more. *Obama's opponents (Democrat and Republican) continue to use Obama's association with Wright as a political hammer against him. The Republicans, in campaign ads, already are showing (in split screen) Rev.Wright ranting in his church, with Obama addressing supporters at a campaign stop, implying a direction connection. *They are trying to brand Obama as a (half)white Trojan Horse who, if elected, will reveal his true inner self once in office by opening up and unleashing hordes of Muslim, black racist Louis Farrakan clones throughout the nation. This is an extreme and unfair characterization of Obama, playing upon racial fears of some whites. *But can it work? Will we be "Willie Horton"ed again? (It worked successfully against Dukakis where the links were even more tenuous.) *While the whole Obama/Wright connection is clearly a Monkey Head in the overall election, will this particular Monkey Head prove to have persuasive, long lasting bite in deciding who our next president will be?
Reply to this
Hi, Mr. Bradley,
I took the liberty of copying our posts from another topic ("Picture of Obama in Native Garb") onto this more curent and relevant topic.
Whew! I don't know where all the disjointed thoughts from my last post came from. In looking back over it and applying your principles, I can see that (like some who want to outlandishly characterize Rev. Wright and, by association, Obama), I have used similar tactics in tarnishing all persons questioning Obama on this issue as "trying to brand Obama as a (half) white Trojan Horse who, when in office...will unleash hordes of Louis Farrakan clones throughout the nation."
Of course, this is a wild overstatement and surely cannot be applied to all addressing this issue. (Heck, *I* even raised this question!) Like you, how can "I try to maintain an openmindedness to be able to see the other point of view...Seek first to understand and then to be understood." Clearly I cannot assign the motives of SOME of Obama's detractors to ALL who legitimately raise the issue.
Reply to this
Peter,
Thanks again for your interest in the topic.
Just as a comment on style, have you ever listened to the motivational speaker Les Brown? He uses a lot of the same speaking techniques, but his messages are much less controversial and much more motivating. I recommend listening to him.
As a further contrast, you might try to listen to an evangelist named Mike Murdoch. I don't agree with everything he has to say, but he is entertaining to listen to.
I've only listened to snippets of TD Jakes, but I believe he also has a similar style you could find interesting for comparison.
Let's try to analyze some of the unspoken fears that are out there (maybe not unspoken, but rather whispered or implied.) Let's say for the sake of argument that Obama is a Muslim and not a Christian. Once elected, he takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. That's a personal promise he (or whoever is elected to the office) makes to each and every citizen of the United States.
But, what if he uses his authority as Commander in Chief to turn the military against us, shut down the government and impose Sharia Law on America? Those are illegal orders. The folks who are wearing the uniforms have also sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution. So have the members of the co-equal branches of the Congress and the Supreme Court. If all those folks are doing their job, then those kind of pronouncements by a renegade President aren't going anywhere.
In fact, the next step by the Congress would be to impeach that President and replace him or her according to the dictates of the Constitution.
By considering this scenario, maybe you can begin to see why some of us have been highly upset since 9/11.
We have had a Congress since 2001 that seems to act as though it took an oath to support and defend the desires of the Republican Party and its contributors, not the Constitution and the American people as a whole.
We have had a President who has behaved as though the Legislative and Court Branches are subservient to the Executive Branch when they are supposed to be co-equal.
We have had an Administration that, rather than expand our military to meet increased requirements, has hired mercenaries to take part of the role of National Defense. In turn, the mercenaries contribute part of the funds gained through their government contracts to the political activities of those who hired them. This is done with the thought that their employers will continue to be in place and re-hire them. If this trend continues and more and more mercenaries are employed (perhaps to the point of being of a rival size to the US Military), and we do get a Commander in Chief who issues an illegal order, what happens then?
The Military will not obey that order and enforce it, but the mercenaries might. If the mercenaries will enforce the orders, then where are we as a country?
So my point is that if we are looking for a danger to our nation in our current candidates, a trojan horse if you will, then perhaps we should be looking elsewhere than the Rev Wright.
Maybe we should be looking at making sure our institutions are being run in accordance with the Constitution. That what Limited Government means. It's one of the reasons this is a Republic, not a pure Democracy.
Maybe we shouldn't give a crap one way or the other what someone's religion is. We should care whether they will actually operate within to support and defend the Constitution.
And maybe we need to educate our kids so they understand and are more interested in these dynamics than they are in American Idol.
My thoughts off the top. Keep those cards and letters coming.
Larry
Reply to this
I was browsing yesterday at a site that offers a wide array of bumper stickers. I realize that checking out bumper stickers against Obama will not give a true barometer of what the American people are really feeling (like, say, a well-concieved poll), but it can give us a snapshot into how some people are viewing the topic. More importantly, if Obama does win the primary, this will surely foreshadow the innuendo and accusations that will only intensify against him.
Actual bumper stickers for sale:
*Give al-Qaeda a Chance. Vote Obama 2008
*Beware False Profets Promising Change
*White Guilt 08
*[Pic. of Obama] Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid.
*I am your typical white person who's not falling for Obama's line of crap.
*I believe in separation of Church & Hate. NO OBAMA.
*Defeat another Hussein. Elect John McCain.
*Spell check says Obama is Osama
*Keep hate alive! Vote Obama!
*If your minister hates America, why is he your minister? Something's not Wright!
*[Pic. of Obama] Yes we can destroy America!
*[Pic. of Obama] The audacity of hype
*My president won't get spiritual advice from someone who says "God D*** America."
*The U.S. of KKK A.? Let's hope Obama picks his Cabinet better than he picks his minister!
*"Typical Gun Loving Bitter Bible-Thumping White Person"
*I'm not sure about Obama's Uncle but MY Uncles's name is SAM and he's not a hate spewing racist!
*Barack Obama: Half Honkey. All Donkey
Reply to this
Interesting perspective. Did the same site offer bumper stickers for Clinton and McCain? The contrast could be revealing. In other words, I'm sure bumper stickers can be found for Clinton and McCain. Does this same site have them for all the candidates, or just anti-Obama? Regardless, I would like to see the other viewpoint.
Thanks for taking the time to make the input.
Reply to this
In all fairness to CafePress.com (where I saw the bumper stickers listed above), I don't think they have a particular political axe to grind. As a printers' clearinghouse from hundreds of companies around the country, they offer bumper stickers (and other items) on any topic you can think of (political or otherwise), both pro and con.
And, yes, they also offer anti-Hillary and anti-McCain stickers. Here is a sampling:
HILLARY CLINTON:
*Life is a bitch. Don't vote for one.
*Even Bill Doesn't Want Hillary
*Monica Lewisnsky's X-Boyfriend's Wife for President
*I Love America so I Hate Hillary
*[Pic. Hillary] It takes a village, to elect an idiot
*Do you really want Bill as Your First Lady
*Hillary Clinton / Marx 08
McCAIN:
*Say NO to 100 More Years in Iraq. Defeat McCain.
*John McCain is a Warmonger.
*McBush: no more years
*[Pic. McCain] No Country For Old Men
*John McCain: Bush on Steroids
*McCain / Hagee: Hate in God's Name
So Hillary is attacked for being a strong woman and for her connections to Bill. McCain is attacked for his age and his connections to Bush and support of the war. I may be biased, but it seems the accustions leveled against Obama are more extreme: his race, his racism, his ties to Muslims, his patriotism, his class, his religion.
CafePress keeps statistics on political candidates bumper stickers sold each week. This week, Obama stickers sold at over 60%. Hillary stickers sold at over 20%. McCain stickers sold at less than 10%. These statistics are not very revealing since they combine all stickers sold on a particular candidate (both PRO and CON)into the one percentage. We don't know how many of the Obama stickers were bought in support of him OR against him. All we can say is that for folks buying bumper stickers, the name Obama is drawing the most attention. (Before Jan 26, his sales compared equally with Hillary. His bumper sticker sales zoomed after the week of Jan 26. Does this correlate with anything interesting?)
Reply to this
Peter, you wrote "So Hillary is attacked for being a strong woman and for her connections to Bill. McCain is attacked for his age and his connections to Bush and support of the war. I may be biased, but it seems the accustions leveled against Obama are more extreme: his race, his racism, his ties to Muslims, his patriotism, his class, his religion.
"CafePress keeps statistics on political candidates bumper stickers sold each week. This week, Obama stickers sold at over 60%. Hillary stickers sold at over 20%. McCain stickers sold at less than 10%. These statistics are not very revealing since they combine all stickers sold on a particular candidate (both PRO and CON)into the one percentage. We don't know how many of the Obama stickers were bought in support of him OR against him. All we can say is that for folks buying bumper stickers, the name Obama is drawing the most attention. (Before Jan 26, his sales compared equally with Hillary. His bumper sticker sales zoomed after the week of Jan 26. Does this correlate with anything interesting?)"
Excellent Summary. The correlation of the date is that is after the New Hampshire primary and just before the Florida and South Carolina primaries.
I was interested in your sales figures, particularly since you showed the negative slogans for all three. I forget that there are also positive stickers sold.
I wonder what results we would have and what conclusions we might reach if we could separate out sales of positive vs. negative themes?
Reply to this
Earlier, I questioned whether the Obama/Wright association would be a successful wedge issue in the campaign. Pick a poll, any poll...stay tuned?
FROM: Obama damaged by Wright flap: USA Today/Gallup poll. (Reuters)
The poll showed Hillary Clinton leading Obama 51 percent to 44 percent nationally among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independent voters, in contrast to a CBS News/New York Times survey released on Sunday that had Obama leading Clinton by 12 points.
The USA Today/Gallup results were a sharp reversal from two weeks ago, before the latest controversy over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, when Obama led Clinton by 10 percentage points. The Thursday-through-Saturday survey had a 5 percentage-point margin of error.
USA Today said the results showed the Wright controversy had raised questions for some voters about Obama's values, credibility and electability.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080505/pl_nm/usa_politics_democrats_poll_dc;_ylt=AksHrSZYwqUhT_Ag13sP0xBsnwcF
FROM: Poll: Voters approve of Obama's handling of Wright situation (AP)
[The CBS News/New York Times poll released on Sunday showed the Illinois senator leading Clinton 50 percent to 38 percent among Democratic voters and said 60 percent approved of how Obama handled the furor over the Chicago minister's public comments.]
In a CBS News/New York Times poll, 60 percent of voters — and 68 percent of Democratic primary voters — said they approved of the way Obama handled the situation. Three-quarters of voters polled said Wright's statements had not changed their opinion of Obama.
And a majority of those polled — 56 percent — said the news media have spent too much time covering the controversy.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080504/ap_on_el_pr/obama_wright_poll;_ylt=Ap2FVJnZBdOwnPnK1l1kR
FROM: Obama's appeal to working-class whites faltering, polls show. (AP)
Barack Obama's problem winning votes from working-class whites is showing no sign of going away, and their impression of him is getting worse.
In an Associated Press-Yahoo News poll in April, 53 percent of whites who have not completed college viewed Obama unfavorably, up a dozen percentage points from November. During that period, the numbers viewing Clinton and Republican candidate John McCain negatively have stayed about even.
In [Pennsylvania] exit polls, one in five of the state's white voters who haven't completed college said race was an important factor in choosing a candidate, about double the number of white college graduates who said so. Eight in 10 of them voted for Clinton over Obama, and only about half said they would vote for Obama over McCain in November.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080504/ap_on_el_pr/obama_working_class_whites;_ylt=Avgndp1_gHl3Gs70t.JEe5tsnwcF
Reply to this
FROM: 58% Say Obama Denounced Wright for Political Convenience, not Outrage.
A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 30% of the nation’s Likely Voters believe Barack Obama denounced his former Pastor, Jeremiah Wright, because he was outraged. Most—58%--say he denounced the Pastor for political convenience.
Fifty-six percent (56%) say it’s at least somewhat likely that Obama “shares some of Pastor Wright’s controversial views about the United States.” That figure includes 26% who say it’s Very Likely Obama holds such views. At the other end of the spectrum 24% say it’s Not Very Likely that Obama shares such views. Just 11% say it’s Not at All Likely.
As you would expect, there are strong partisan differences on these questions. Generally, Democrats are divided while Republicans take a less charitable view of Obama.
Seventy-four percent (74%) of Republicans believe it’s somewhat or very likely that Obama shares some of Wright’s views. That assessment is shared by 48% of Democrats and 49% of those not affiliated with either major party.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/58_say_obama_denounced_wright_for_political_convenience_not_outrage
Reply to this
Peter--Excellent addition to the discussion. What do you think this says about the campaign that will be mounted against Obama in the fall?
Reply to this